get_sendig_domain_structure

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It calls the operation a 'Get', implying a read-only retrieval, and transparently states that an unspecified sendig_version uses the latest version. It also describes the return type as a dict with variables and metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by structured Args, Returns, and Examples. It is compact and informative, with only minor redunancy between the summary and the Returns line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: domain required, version optional with default, and return shape summarized. Lacking details about headers_ format keeps this from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for domain with concrete examples, for sendig_version with format and default behavior, and marks headers_ as optional custom headers. The headers_ parameter remains somewhat vague, keeping this below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Get complete SEND domain structure with all variables and metadata', which states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_sendig_variable_details by emphasizing the complete domain structure rather than a single variable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the complete SEND domain structure is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose and required domain argument imply the use case strongly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.